If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Oh gosh, how can I thank you for your helpful suggestion? here's a tip for you:
Get mining, get an Earth map and find gold, if you mine enough you'll find gold and become a billionaire. HTH

You're incorrectly inferring I was attempting a suggestion and was soliciting thanks for my supposedly brilliant contribution. I wasn't. I was just stating the obvious. So the joke's on you.

But let's look at the situation realistically - what will you gain if geometry shaders get implemented for SB? It's not like SB is powerful enough to actually run the things that rely on geometry shaders. You get prettier glxinfo output, and can maybe marvel at some demo running at low fps, and that's that. So I find posts like rikkinho's beyond silly.

Comment

I consider this statement as fact that Intel devs won't implement those on their own.

Yes it can be interpreted that way, but it's very different from "Intel OTC devs said they won't implement anything newer than 3.1 for Sandy Bridge". The thing is, 3.1+ extensions already are implemented on SB.
You're doing the same as those who were saying "Nvidia said they will never support Optimus on Linux", when what they actually said was "We currently do not have plans to support display on Optimus systems where the display is connected to the Intel hardware" (emphasis mine).

Comment

You're doing the same as those who were saying "Nvidia said they will never support Optimus on Linux", when what they actually said was "We currently do not have plans to support display on Optimus systems where the display is connected to the Intel hardware" (emphasis mine).

i don't really care what they said if feature I need not supported or broken. There is no GL_ARB_compatibility support in Mesa so applications that require OpenGL 3.3 won't work out of box on Sandy Bridge even if those don't need geometry shaders and this is sad.

Comment

OpenGL coding is a nightmare due to the vast diversity of availability of extensions, which is somewhat understandable, but it's hard to find a good technical explanation for why each version of GLSL breaks with previous versions. If you want to write a properly portable OpenGL application, you basically need to rewrite every shader in various versions of GLSL -- there's no difference in features, just in syntax. Sure, newer versions are nicer and cleaner, but the cost of this urge to streamline is huge headaches for us devs.

OpenGL is the best option we have for crossplatform graphics development, but I can't say I love it.

What is lowest common denominator?

If your shaders work with mere syntax changes, you should've written them in the earlier version in the first place.

Comment

OpenGL coding is a nightmare due to the vast diversity of availability of extensions, which is somewhat understandable, but it's hard to find a good technical explanation for why each version of GLSL breaks with previous versions. If you want to write a properly portable OpenGL application, you basically need to rewrite every shader in various versions of GLSL -- there's no difference in features, just in syntax. Sure, newer versions are nicer and cleaner, but the cost of this urge to streamline is huge headaches for us devs.

That's not true. If a driver supports GLSL 3.30, it also supports 1.50, 1.40, 1.30, 1.20, and 1.10. You can specify the GLSL version your shader is written for using the directive #version at the beginning of a shader. If you don't specify the directive, you should always get GLSL 1.10 and this is where drivers differ. While the open source drivers obey the specification and give you 1.10, the proprietary drivers don't and usually give you the latest version they support. Always use the version directive and you won't have to write your shaders for every GLSL version.

Comment

No, the fact that something is open source and if you have problems go ahead and work on the program - is always the worst and cheapest point/advice made among the open source aficionados. It's like those liberals always saying that you're a racist if you don't support Obama - which is also the most often, cheapest and dumbest argument a liberal makes these days (in the USA).
Playing the race card (in politics) or the open source card in the software world, like many other cards, are null, void and long overdrawn.

Comment

No, the fact that something is open source and if you have problems go ahead and work on the program - is always the worst and cheapest point/advice made among the open source aficionados. It's like those liberals always saying that you're a racist if you don't support Obama - which is also the most often, cheapest and dumbest argument a liberal makes these days (in the USA).
Playing the race card (in politics) or the open source card in the software world, like many other cards, are null, void and long overdrawn.

You're usually getting the software for free and not giving anything in exchange. Not everything comes in your mouth directly.

Comment

No, the fact that something is open source and if you have problems go ahead and work on the program - is always the worst and cheapest point/advice made among the open source aficionados. It's like those liberals always saying that you're a racist if you don't support Obama - which is also the most often, cheapest and dumbest argument a liberal makes these days (in the USA).
Playing the race card (in politics) or the open source card in the software world, like many other cards, are null, void and long overdrawn.

That's a ridiculous comparison. That argument is idiotic, because Obama has a lot more traits than just his skin color, and those other traits are a lot more important in determining his suitability to lead a country. But open source software being, well, open is the one defining characteristic that gives you the ability to do something that you otherwise wouldn't be able to do. So my argument is not at all like that idiotic one.